My name is ___________ and I am a
resident of ____________. I am writing
to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create a
dangerous LNG port just offshore of the most densely populated metropolitan
area in our nation.

In addition to the impacts Port
Ambrose will have on the environment, commercial and recreation fishing
industries, and the coastal tourism industry, my main concern is the security
and safety of region. Tankers filled
with explosive gas just miles offshore would no doubt be recognized as a
potential target and threat to national security. An attack on a floating LNG vessel or port at
the entrance to one of the busiest ports in the world would cripple the region
and put countless lives in danger.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
recognized this threat when he vetoed a previous identical proposal from
Liberty Natural Gas saying, “the Liberty project would create a heightened risk
in a densely developed region, including potential accidents or sabotage
disrupting commerce…” Please heed Governor Christie’s warning and reject
Liberty’s application for the safety and security of the region. I appreciate your time and attention to this
matter.

Sincerely,

Template
2: Jobs/Coastal Economy

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a
resident of ____________. I am writing
to ask that you reject Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create a hazardous LNG
port just offshore of the most densely populated metropolitan area in our
nation.

While Liberty Natural Gas claims the Port
Ambrose proposal will create thousands of jobs, I believe this to be
misleading. According to Liberty’s application,
Port Ambrose would generate only six to 10 permanent land-based jobs after the
port’s construction. I don’t believe
putting our environment and coastal economies at risk are worth 6 permanent jobs,
four more if the port gets deliveries (which similar ports in Boston
haven’t gotten in years, and one just shut down because of inaction).

The coastal economy from Cape May, New Jersey to Montauk,
New York is dependent upon a clean, pollution-free
ocean. By building a dirty fossil fuel
facility, Liberty Natural Gas will put the recreation and commercial fishing
industries as well as the local tourism industry at risk. For example, the port will exclude commercial
and recreational fishermen from high-value ocean areas during both construction
and operation. Also, in the event of a spill,
accident, or explosion, there would undoubtedly be effects on the boating,
diving, shipping and tourism uses of the ocean.
All of these industries, on top of this Liberty Natural Gas threat, are still
struggling to get back on their feet after Superstorm Sandy.

Please don’t let the Long Island South Shore
and the Jersey Shore become the next Gulf Coast: riddled with failed fossil
fuel facilities and diminishing coastal economies.

Sincerely,

Template
3: Environmental Impacts

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a
resident of ____________. I am writing
to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create the
first dirty fossil fuel facility in the New York Bight.

In addition to land-based environmental
implications, security concerns, and economic shortcomings of this project, I oppose
Port Ambrose because of the detrimental effects construction and maintenance
will have on the marine environment. First,
the creation of the pipeline connecting the port to the existing
transcontinental pipeline will dredge up over 20 miles of seafloor that contain
critical marine life on which the ecosystem relies. Additionally, the proposed port would
discharge 3.5 million gallons of chemically-treated seawater used for pipe
tests back into the water. With the
seawater intake for ballast, potential open loop thermal pollution, closed loop
thermal pollution, and the potential for wastewater, stormwater, and accidental
or incidental discharges ever-present in addition to dredging and chemical pipe
test discharges, the negative impacts on the offshore environment are clear.

Lastly, I would like to raise the
issue of the increasingly intense and frequent storms that the New York Bight
is exposed to. If LNG tankers were
offshore when Superstorm Sandy barreled up the Atlantic, devastation from the
storm could have been made much worse, considering wave heights offshore reached
over 30ft, near the proposed location of the port. The people of New York and New Jersey need to
be exposed to the potential dangers of what an offshore LNG facility in the
middle of a Hurricane could mean.

I appreciate your time and attention
to this matter, and ask that you reject Liberty’s proposal.

Sincerely,

Template
4: Bait and Switch

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a
resident of ____________. I am writing
to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create the
first dirty fossil fuel facility in the New York Bight.

Liberty Natural Gas, despite being proposed as
an “import” facility, can legally petition the government to switch to exports
once it has a license for imports – this bait and switch process wouldn’t
trigger any public input, any further review, or any notice. It is for this reason that I believe Liberty
Natural Gas CEO Roger Whelan’s claims and Liberty Natural Gas’s application to
be disingenuous. With the price of
natural gas overseas skyrocketing to levels six times higher than prices here, it
only makes financial sense that a natural gas company would want this facility to
export natural gas. Liberty switching to
exports, or even selling to another company that switches the license to
exports, would lead to an increase in local demand for shale gas and ramped-up fracking
in the region.

Our nation is too dependent on fossil
fuels and dirty energy instead of focusing on renewable energy sources. This port, if for imports, would lead to
higher gas prices as we would have to compete with higher buyers overseas. If for exports, which could be easily
achieved once a license was secured, this port will surely drive up our gas
prices and trigger an explosion of fracking – and the environmental impacts
that result therefrom. Neither use of
the port is in the interests of the people of the region.

I appreciate your time and attention
to this matter, and ask that you reject Liberty’s proposal.

Sincerely,

Template 5:
Energy Costs

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a
resident of ____________. I am writing
to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s Port Ambrose application and
to ask you to reject the proposal based on economic reasons.

This port, be it for imports or
exports, would raise energy costs in the region. The price for imported LNG is higher
overseas, so If Liberty imports natural gas, they will be paying more for
foreign fossil fuels. To make a profit,
they would have to sell the gas in the region at a higher rate.

If the port eventually exports natural
gas, as is most likely because of the price tag for LNG overseas, the demand and therefore price for domestic
gas would increase as most of the gas would be shipped overseas.

The bottom line is, if this port is
for imports: we don’t need it. If it is
for exports: we don’t want it.

I appreciate your time and attention
to this matter.

Sincerely,

___________________

Sample Newsletter Article - August 2013

This past June, the United States Maritime
Administration announced that Liberty LNG has again applied to build a Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) facility off the coast of New York and New Jersey. The project, called “Port Ambrose,” wouldhost massive natural gas tankers and will lead to an acceleration of hydraulic
fracturing in the northeast by opening up a gateway for LNG exports. This
project is the same project previously vetoed by Governor Christie in 2011; it
may have a new name, but it is in the same place, and has the same impacts,
dangers, and drawbacks. (Clean Ocean Action’s factsheet on the port is attached.)

The proposed location for the LNG
port would directly interfere with the proposed New York State offshore wind
lease area identified by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Additionally,in the past, LNG ports proposed in the
NY/NJ Bight were met with vehement opposition from community and civic
organizations, commercial and recreational fishing interests, faith based
organizations, conservation and environmental groups, and thousands of
concerned members of the public, including New Jersey’s Governor. For this latest application, the coalition of
interests aligned against Liberty LNG has grown. During the July public hearings, hundreds of
concerned citizens filled hearing rooms in Long Beach, New York, and Edison,
New Jersey, and the beach in Sea Bright, New Jersey to voice their continued
opposition to offshore industrialization.

If you are interested in joining
thousands of citizens and the Governor of New Jersey in opposing Liberty LNG’s
plans to put a hazardous industrial facility just off our beaches, we ask that you go on the record in
opposition of “Port Ambrose” by submitting official “comments” to the federal
agency in charge of licensing these ports.
Comments and statements in support of clean ocean uses like fishing and
tourism, and in opposition to this specific threat to our region’s economy, security,
and environment, will be considered until
August 22nd. Public comments can be
submitted online at http://goo.gl/7ye6uh or
submitted by mail to the following address: Department of Transportation,
Docket Management Facility, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001.

If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to call Clean Ocean Action at 732-872-0111 or email citizens@cleanoceanaction.org. Thank you for your time and attention to this
urgent matter.

2 comments:

My name is Brigitte Zimmer and I am a resident of Long Island, NY. I am writing to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create the first dirty fossil fuel facility in the New York Bight.

In addition to land-based environmental implications, security concerns, and economic shortcomings of this project, I oppose Port Ambrose because of the detrimental effects construction and maintenance will have on the marine environment. First, the creation of the pipeline connecting the port to the existing transcontinental pipeline will dredge up over 20 miles of seafloor that contain critical marine life on which the ecosystem relies.

Additionally, the proposed port would discharge 3.5 million gallons of chemically-treated seawater used for pipe tests back into the water. With the seawater intake for ballast, potential open loop thermal pollution, closed loop thermal pollution, and the potential for waste water, storm water, and accidental or incidental discharges ever-present in addition to dredging and chemical pipe test discharges, the negative impacts on the offshore environment are clear.

Lastly, I would like to raise the issue of the increasingly intense and frequent storms that the New York Bight is exposed to. If LNG tankers were offshore when Superstorm Sandy barreled up the Atlantic, devastation from the storm could have been made much worse, considering wave heights offshore reached over 30ft, near the proposed location of the port. The people of New York and New Jersey need to be exposed to the potential dangers of what an offshore LNG facility in the middle of a Hurricane could mean.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and ask that you reject Liberty’s proposal.

Follow by Email!

About Us

Clean Ocean Action (COA) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the degraded water quality of the marine waters off the coast of New Jersey/New York coast and protecting the ocean from new sources of pollution.
www.CleanOceanAction.org